FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS
B o u l d e r B a y C o m m u n i t y E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m P r o j e c t E I S
DEIS does not claim population projections indicate a demand for resort facilities,
nor does this affect the environmental analysis. Project objectives would suggest that
a project like Boulder Bay is needed to recapture the visitor base that is traveling
elsewhere to resorts with amenities that reflect modern needs and desires.
Comment 322-gt: Comment Summary - What population growth rate is needed to support a resort of
this size and scope? What is the impact of increasing the visitor population as part
of the Boulder Bay project on local residents? The DEIS states that homeowners are
tourists. Does it mean to say they are second homeowners?
Actual new population numbers needed to support the resort (employees) are
discussed in SPH-1 through 3. Tourist populations are not permanent and are not
reflected in area population counts or actual growth rates. The impact of increasing
the visitor population is discussed throughout Chapter 4 of the DEIS as Project
operations (noise, air quality, traffic, etc.). The DEIS does not state that homeowners
are tourists. Under the analysis for SPH-3 on page 4.11-13, the DEIS states:
"Alternatives C, D and E will include up to 59 whole ownership market rate multifamily
dwelling units. Assuming 2.52 persons per household (average Washoe
County household size in 2007), full time resident population may increase by up to
149 persons under Alternative C, 53 persons under Alternative D, and 83 persons
under Alternative E. This would be a worst-case scenario since the majority of these
units will likely be sold to second homeowners not permanently residing in these
units. Since 50% to 70% of the historical real estate sales for such units are to second
homeowners, permanent populations in these units are more likely to be 60, 21, and
40 persons, respectively."
Comment 322-gu: Comment Summary - Please address that locating affordable housing adjacent to
gaming does not conform to the goals of the NSCP.
Figure 2 in the NSCP shows land use concepts for the area, including the Tahoe
Mariner site. For this site, the land use concept includes a casino/hotel and employee
housing. While employee housing does differ from affordable housing, it is
anticipated that resort employees that qualify as low-income will occupy the onsite
housing. NSCP 1.2 states that employee housing shall be used to "buffer" the casino
and commercial uses from residential uses. In effect, the project implements the
goals of the NSCP by placing affordable housing between the commercial areas and
other existing housing units.
Comment 322-gv: Comment Summary - Building elevations should be shown.
Please see response to comment 322-x.
Comment 322-gw: Comment Summary - Increased building setbacks from Hwy 28 of 40' are discussed
as a benefit at the site plan indicated a setback of approx. 20'. What is the setback to
the property line on Hwy 28? Is the 40' reference a setback to edge of pavement?
Building setbacks are calculated using the distance between the proposed SR 28 edge
of pavement and the specific building. The proposed Code Chapter 22 amendment
also would measure setbacks from the edge of pavement.
Comment 322-gx: Comment Summary - 2-23 What is the current massing and cubic volume of the
Biltmore versus the proposed massing and cubic volume of the new project?
The existing structures within the project area include approximately 123,000 square
feet of gross floor area. Under Alternative C, the gross floor area of buildings would
increase to approximately 465,000 square feet. Under Alternative D, the gross floor
PAGE 8- 120 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010